Census: good reason for sensitive questions

[Heather Morrison-2]

One really good reason for including sensitive questions like ethnicity, religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or living in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people from such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.

Heather Morrison
[hidden email]

[catherine]

I have asked repeatedly to be unsubscribed from this list as this
discussion has me just about ready to stab myself in the eye with a fork
but since I am still here, I will address the disability angle that many
people have brought up to defend the latest government decision to scrap
the mandatory long form.

I am a person with a disability and although I certainly do not presume to
speak for the 4.4 million or so people with disabilities in Canada, I
think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in my community, what
with working on various issues related to disability for the last 20
years.

The organisations I work with are all very worried about what this
will mean for the availability of data on disability in Canada, especially
in light of the government's decision to totally scrap the Participation
and Limitations Survey that was administered every five years to get a
more detailed picture of conditions and issues within my community since
the short form does not collect data on disability and the long form only
includes 2 questions which hardly scratch the surface.

I am annoyed that disability has been brought up in this debate. I have
yet to have one person from my community tell me or have yet to hear of a
person with a disability complain about this and I know a lot of people
with disabilities. Now I am sure there must a few people with disabilities
out there who may have issues with the long form though I honestly doubt
it is concerning those 2 little questions. The truth is the government
knows more about our situation than those 2 little questions could ever
tell.

The only people I have heard complain about this are abled-bodied people.
So unless you are a person with a disability or have direct knowledge of a
person with a disability who is concerned about privacy issues related to
the 2 disability questions that are in the long form, please stop bringing
it up. We are well able to speak for ourselves.

And just so we are clear, I am not interested in debating this.



--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net



On Mon, July 26, 2010 10:27 pm, Heather Morrison wrote:

> One really good reason for including sensitive questions like ethnicity,
> religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on
> discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or living
> in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be
> mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people from
> such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.
>
> Heather Morrison
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

[Heather Morrison-2]

Catherine, thank you for sharing this.  No debate here, just support!  
If the groups you work with are concerned about dropping the mandatory  
form of the census, this makes me concerned, too.  I encourage you to  
speak up and ask your groups to add their weight to Tracey's list.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 26-Jul-10, at 8:07 PM, catherine wrote:

> I have asked repeatedly to be unsubscribed from this list as this
> discussion has me just about ready to stab myself in the eye with a  
> fork
> but since I am still here, I will address the disability angle that  
> many
> people have brought up to defend the latest government decision to  
> scrap
> the mandatory long form.
>
> I am a person with a disability and although I certainly do not  
> presume to
> speak for the 4.4 million or so people with disabilities in Canada, I
> think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in my community,  
> what
> with working on various issues related to disability for the last 20
> years.
>
> The organisations I work with are all very worried about what this
> will mean for the availability of data on disability in Canada,  
> especially
> in light of the government's decision to totally scrap the  
> Participation
> and Limitations Survey that was administered every five years to get a
> more detailed picture of conditions and issues within my community  
> since
> the short form does not collect data on disability and the long form  
> only
> includes 2 questions which hardly scratch the surface.
>
> I am annoyed that disability has been brought up in this debate. I  
> have
> yet to have one person from my community tell me or have yet to hear  
> of a
> person with a disability complain about this and I know a lot of  
> people
> with disabilities. Now I am sure there must a few people with  
> disabilities
> out there who may have issues with the long form though I honestly  
> doubt
> it is concerning those 2 little questions. The truth is the government
> knows more about our situation than those 2 little questions could  
> ever
> tell.
>
> The only people I have heard complain about this are abled-bodied  
> people.
> So unless you are a person with a disability or have direct  
> knowledge of a
> person with a disability who is concerned about privacy issues  
> related to
> the 2 disability questions that are in the long form, please stop  
> bringing
> it up. We are well able to speak for ourselves.
>
> And just so we are clear, I am not interested in debating this.
>
>
>
> --
> Catherine Roy
> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>
>
>
> On Mon, July 26, 2010 10:27 pm, Heather Morrison wrote:
>> One really good reason for including sensitive questions like  
>> ethnicity,
>> religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on
>> discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or  
>> living
>> in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be
>> mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people  
>> from
>> such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Jennifer Bell]

Given yesterday's news, this post is irrelevant (thank goodness)... but at risk to Catharine's eyesight I'll post it anyway:

Thanks, Heather!  You've really opened my eyes.  If only more people knew this, they might fill out the form too.

But... I'm still worried... Not many people know this, but my ancestry is Iranian Bahai*.   Bad things happened in my country to people who said what they were....  and I've heard this government doesn't like minorities.  Can they really be trusted?   Some other people said that the government will put me in jail if I don't answer the questions, which sounds a lot like the government where my family came from.

Plus, people in line at the grocery store said I shouldn't fill out the form because it's just used to make commercials, which seems wrong to me.  And don't they say now that you should protect your privacy on the internet?  Why is the government asking me these questions?

I've heard that some people, like you say, use the information to do good things, but I don't know what they are, so I don't know what to think...   .  

Jennifer

* I'm making a point.  The US census went way over budget this year.  I wonder why.

** Homophily: a relevant concept.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

--- On Tue, 7/27/10, Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Heather Morrison <[hidden email]>
Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] support for Catherine Re: Census: good reason for sensitive questions
To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
Received: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:31 AM

Catherine, thank you for sharing this.  No debate here, just support!  If the groups you work with are concerned about dropping the mandatory form of the census, this makes me concerned, too.  I encourage you to speak up and ask your groups to add their weight to Tracey's list.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 26-Jul-10, at 8:07 PM, catherine wrote:

> I have asked repeatedly to be unsubscribed from this list as this
> discussion has me just about ready to stab myself in the eye with a fork
> but since I am still here, I will address the disability angle that many
> people have brought up to defend the latest government decision to scrap
> the mandatory long form.
>
> I am a person with a disability and although I certainly do not presume to
> speak for the 4.4 million or so people with disabilities in Canada, I
> think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in my community, what
> with working on various issues related to disability for the last 20
> years.
>
> The organisations I work with are all very worried about what this
> will mean for the availability of data on disability in Canada, especially
> in light of the government's decision to totally scrap the Participation
> and Limitations Survey that was administered every five years to get a
> more detailed picture of conditions and issues within my community since
> the short form does not collect data on disability and the long form only
> includes 2 questions which hardly scratch the surface.
>
> I am annoyed that disability has been brought up in this debate. I have
> yet to have one person from my community tell me or have yet to hear of a
> person with a disability complain about this and I know a lot of people
> with disabilities. Now I am sure there must a few people with disabilities
> out there who may have issues with the long form though I honestly doubt
> it is concerning those 2 little questions. The truth is the government
> knows more about our situation than those 2 little questions could ever
> tell.
>
> The only people I have heard complain about this are abled-bodied people.
> So unless you are a person with a disability or have direct knowledge of a
> person with a disability who is concerned about privacy issues related to
> the 2 disability questions that are in the long form, please stop bringing
> it up. We are well able to speak for ourselves.
>
> And just so we are clear, I am not interested in debating this.
>
>
>
> --Catherine Roy
> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>
>
>
> On Mon, July 26, 2010 10:27 pm, Heather Morrison wrote:
>> One really good reason for including sensitive questions like ethnicity,
>> religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on
>> discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or living
>> in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be
>> mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people from
>> such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> hgmorris@...
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> CivicAccess-discuss@...
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss@...
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
CivicAccess-discuss@...
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

Listen to Ivan Fellegi's, Former Chief Statistician's responses to your concerns aired on CPAC yesterday.  He addressed those very well.  He left a totalitarian regime, so he is fully aware of those concerns.

re-Jail, the tories have done a great job making you believe that is what has been done.  Kudos to them on the strength and effectiveness of their disinformation campaign and causing all of use to waste time on that item.  No one has ever gone to jail for not filling out the census.  Lets please move on and stop perpetuating that myth.

That was in the Act.  All the tories need to do is change the act and keep the census mandatory.  That is what the INDU committee discussed yesterday.  My favorite line from yesterday was, and i paraphrase " the agriculture survey, which is mandatory, collects information on the amount of manure produced.  So for rural canada, the census is mandatory, but urban canada social issues are not - what is up with that! "

Look at the list of those who oppose this change on the datalibre site (http://datalibre.ca/census-watch/) and that will give you an indication of the type of work they are doing and how they use the census. If you go to any of their website, you will find hundreds of reports that use census data.  Maybe you will find some good stuff to inform the types of things you are talking about that we can then all benefit from!

cheers
t

forgive my grumpiness - but I am so done with the jail issue!

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Given yesterday's news, this post is irrelevant (thank goodness)... but at risk to Catharine's eyesight I'll post it anyway:

Thanks, Heather!  You've really opened my eyes.  If only more people knew this, they might fill out the form too.

But... I'm still worried... Not many people know this, but my ancestry is Iranian Bahai*.   Bad things happened in my country to people who said what they were....  and I've heard this government doesn't like minorities.  Can they really be trusted?   Some other people said that the government will put me in jail if I don't answer the questions, which sounds a lot like the government where my family came from.

Plus, people in line at the grocery store said I shouldn't fill out the form because it's just used to make commercials, which seems wrong to me.  And don't they say now that you should protect your privacy on the internet?  Why is the government asking me these questions?

I've heard that some people, like you say, use the information to do good things, but I don't know what they are, so I don't know what to think...   .  

Jennifer

* I'm making a point.  The US census went way over budget this year.  I wonder why.

** Homophily: a relevant concept.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

--- On Tue, 7/27/10, Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Heather Morrison <[hidden email]>
Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] support for Catherine Re: Census: good reason for sensitive questions
To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
Received: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:31 AM

Catherine, thank you for sharing this.  No debate here, just support!  If the groups you work with are concerned about dropping the mandatory form of the census, this makes me concerned, too.  I encourage you to speak up and ask your groups to add their weight to Tracey's list.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 26-Jul-10, at 8:07 PM, catherine wrote:

> I have asked repeatedly to be unsubscribed from this list as this
> discussion has me just about ready to stab myself in the eye with a fork
> but since I am still here, I will address the disability angle that many
> people have brought up to defend the latest government decision to scrap
> the mandatory long form.
>
> I am a person with a disability and although I certainly do not presume to
> speak for the 4.4 million or so people with disabilities in Canada, I
> think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in my community, what
> with working on various issues related to disability for the last 20
> years.
>
> The organisations I work with are all very worried about what this
> will mean for the availability of data on disability in Canada, especially
> in light of the government's decision to totally scrap the Participation
> and Limitations Survey that was administered every five years to get a
> more detailed picture of conditions and issues within my community since
> the short form does not collect data on disability and the long form only
> includes 2 questions which hardly scratch the surface.
>
> I am annoyed that disability has been brought up in this debate. I have
> yet to have one person from my community tell me or have yet to hear of a
> person with a disability complain about this and I know a lot of people
> with disabilities. Now I am sure there must a few people with disabilities
> out there who may have issues with the long form though I honestly doubt
> it is concerning those 2 little questions. The truth is the government
> knows more about our situation than those 2 little questions could ever
> tell.
>
> The only people I have heard complain about this are abled-bodied people.
> So unless you are a person with a disability or have direct knowledge of a
> person with a disability who is concerned about privacy issues related to
> the 2 disability questions that are in the long form, please stop bringing

> it up. We are well able to speak for ourselves.
>
> And just so we are clear, I am not interested in debating this.
>
>
>
> --Catherine Roy
> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>
>
>
> On Mon, July 26, 2010 10:27 pm, Heather Morrison wrote:

>> One really good reason for including sensitive questions like ethnicity,
>> religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on
>> discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or living
>> in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be
>> mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people from
>> such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> hgmorris@...
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> CivicAccess-discuss@...
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss@...
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
CivicAccess-discuss@...
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805

[Daniel Haran]

So how many people have gone to jail in the last, say 30 years over this?

Is it more or less than for practicing withcraft? From the criminal code:

****
365. Every one who fraudulently

(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery,
enchantment or conjuration,

(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or

(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty
science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed
to have been stolen or lost may be found,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
****

Best,

Daniel.


On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Given yesterday's news, this post is irrelevant (thank goodness)... but at risk to Catharine's eyesight I'll post it anyway:
> Thanks, Heather!  You've really opened my eyes.  If only more people knew this, they might fill out the form too.
> But... I'm still worried... Not many people know this, but my ancestry is Iranian Bahai*.   Bad things happened in my country to people who said what they were....  and I've heard this government doesn't like minorities.  Can they really be trusted?   Some other people said that the government will put me in jail if I don't answer the questions, which sounds a lot like the government where my family came from.
> Plus, people in line at the grocery store said I shouldn't fill out the form because it's just used to make commercials, which seems wrong to me.  And don't they say now that you should protect your privacy on the internet?  Why is the government asking me these questions?
> I've heard that some people, like you say, use the information to do good things, but I don't know what they are, so I don't know what to think...   .
> Jennifer
> * I'm making a point.  The US census went way over budget this year.  I wonder why.
> ** Homophily: a relevant concept.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
> --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> From: Heather Morrison <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] support for Catherine Re: Census: good reason for sensitive questions
> To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:31 AM
>
> Catherine, thank you for sharing this.  No debate here, just support!  If the groups you work with are concerned about dropping the mandatory form of the census, this makes me concerned, too.  I encourage you to speak up and ask your groups to add their weight to Tracey's list.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> On 26-Jul-10, at 8:07 PM, catherine wrote:
>
> > I have asked repeatedly to be unsubscribed from this list as this
> > discussion has me just about ready to stab myself in the eye with a fork
> > but since I am still here, I will address the disability angle that many
> > people have brought up to defend the latest government decision to scrap
> > the mandatory long form.
> >
> > I am a person with a disability and although I certainly do not presume to
> > speak for the 4.4 million or so people with disabilities in Canada, I
> > think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in my community, what
> > with working on various issues related to disability for the last 20
> > years.
> >
> > The organisations I work with are all very worried about what this
> > will mean for the availability of data on disability in Canada, especially
> > in light of the government's decision to totally scrap the Participation
> > and Limitations Survey that was administered every five years to get a
> > more detailed picture of conditions and issues within my community since
> > the short form does not collect data on disability and the long form only
> > includes 2 questions which hardly scratch the surface.
> >
> > I am annoyed that disability has been brought up in this debate. I have
> > yet to have one person from my community tell me or have yet to hear of a
> > person with a disability complain about this and I know a lot of people
> > with disabilities. Now I am sure there must a few people with disabilities
> > out there who may have issues with the long form though I honestly doubt
> > it is concerning those 2 little questions. The truth is the government
> > knows more about our situation than those 2 little questions could ever
> > tell.
> >
> > The only people I have heard complain about this are abled-bodied people.
> > So unless you are a person with a disability or have direct knowledge of a
> > person with a disability who is concerned about privacy issues related to
> > the 2 disability questions that are in the long form, please stop bringing
> > it up. We are well able to speak for ourselves.
> >
> > And just so we are clear, I am not interested in debating this.
> >
> >
> >
> > --Catherine Roy
> > http://www.catherine-roy.net
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, July 26, 2010 10:27 pm, Heather Morrison wrote:
> >> One really good reason for including sensitive questions like ethnicity,
> >> religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on
> >> discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or living
> >> in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be
> >> mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people from
> >> such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.
> >>
> >> Heather Morrison
> >> [hidden email]
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Jennifer Bell]

Um... I think people missed my point here. :-)  I am fully aware that there are social benefits to the census information, thanks.    But lots of people aren't.  Heather's been trying to make this point for ages, but no one's listened.

Even if status-quo supporters had won the war with cabinet to keep things exactly as they are, the real issue is with the people who you want to fill out the survey.  Many of them don't read the Globe and Mail, or really any main-stream media at all, and are prone to dis-information campaigns.  Those are the people you would have had to convince to not fill out the form incorrectly.  The current campaign mounted on datalibre.ca, and the arguments I've seen on this newsgroup, haven't really addressed that.

The thing with the Tea Party in the US is, even if they themselves were a small group, they probably managed to infect a whole bunch of non-Tea Partiers with their ideas around the census.  A dis-information pandemic, if you will, aided by social media like Twitter.  I suspect that's why the US census went over budget, to the point where they had to go back to congress to ask for more money to complete it.

As I said, this discussion is now irrelevent.  Except to point out that the consumers of information have to consider not just their own point of view, but the logistics and emotions of the whole data pipeline.  

Jennifer

--- On Wed, 7/28/10, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] support for Catherine Re: Census: good reason for sensitive questions
To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
Received: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 2:07 PM

Listen to Ivan Fellegi's, Former Chief Statistician's responses to your concerns aired on CPAC yesterday.  He addressed those very well.  He left a totalitarian regime, so he is fully aware of those concerns.

re-Jail, the tories have done a great job making you believe that is what has been done.  Kudos to them on the strength and effectiveness of their disinformation campaign and causing all of use to waste time on that item.  No one has ever gone to jail for not filling out the census.  Lets please move on and stop perpetuating that myth.

That was in the Act.  All the tories need to do is change the act and keep the census mandatory.  That is what the INDU committee discussed yesterday.  My favorite line from yesterday was, and i paraphrase " the agriculture survey, which is mandatory, collects information on the amount of manure produced.  So for rural canada, the census is mandatory, but urban canada social issues are not - what is up with that! "

Look at the list of those who oppose this change on the datalibre site (http://datalibre.ca/census-watch/) and that will give you an indication of the type of work they are doing and how they use the census. If you go to any of their website, you will find hundreds of reports that use census data.  Maybe you will find some good stuff to inform the types of things you are talking about that we can then all benefit from!

cheers
t

forgive my grumpiness - but I am so done with the jail issue!

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jennifer Bell <jenniferlianne@...> wrote:

Given yesterday's news, this post is irrelevant (thank goodness)... but at risk to Catharine's eyesight I'll post it anyway:

Thanks, Heather!  You've really opened my eyes.  If only more people knew this, they might fill out the form too.

But... I'm still worried... Not many people know this, but my ancestry is Iranian Bahai*.   Bad things happened in my country to people who said what they were....  and I've heard this government doesn't like minorities.  Can they really be trusted?   Some other people said that the government will put me in jail if I don't answer the questions, which sounds a lot like the government where my family came from.

Plus, people in line at the grocery store said I shouldn't fill out the form because it's just used to make commercials, which seems wrong to me.  And don't they say now that you should protect your privacy on the internet?  Why is the government asking me these questions?

I've heard that some people, like you say, use the information to do good things, but I don't know what they are, so I don't know what to think...   .  

Jennifer

* I'm making a point.  The US census went way over budget this year.  I wonder why.

** Homophily: a relevant concept.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

--- On Tue, 7/27/10, Heather Morrison <hgmorris@...> wrote:

From: Heather Morrison <hgmorris@...>
Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] support for Catherine Re: Census: good reason for sensitive questions
To: "civicaccess discuss" <civicaccess-discuss@...>
Received: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:31 AM

Catherine, thank you for sharing this.  No debate here, just support!  If the groups you work with are concerned about dropping the mandatory form of the census, this makes me concerned, too.  I encourage you to speak up and ask your groups to add their weight to Tracey's list.

best,

Heather Morrison

On 26-Jul-10, at 8:07 PM, catherine wrote:

> I have asked repeatedly to be unsubscribed from this list as this
> discussion has me just about ready to stab myself in the eye with a fork
> but since I am still here, I will address the disability angle that many
> people have brought up to defend the latest government decision to scrap
> the mandatory long form.
>
> I am a person with a disability and although I certainly do not presume to
> speak for the 4.4 million or so people with disabilities in Canada, I
> think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in my community, what
> with working on various issues related to disability for the last 20
> years.
>
> The organisations I work with are all very worried about what this
> will mean for the availability of data on disability in Canada, especially
> in light of the government's decision to totally scrap the Participation
> and Limitations Survey that was administered every five years to get a
> more detailed picture of conditions and issues within my community since
> the short form does not collect data on disability and the long form only
> includes 2 questions which hardly scratch the surface.
>
> I am annoyed that disability has been brought up in this debate. I have
> yet to have one person from my community tell me or have yet to hear of a
> person with a disability complain about this and I know a lot of people
> with disabilities. Now I am sure there must a few people with disabilities
> out there who may have issues with the long form though I honestly doubt
> it is concerning those 2 little questions. The truth is the government
> knows more about our situation than those 2 little questions could ever
> tell.
>
> The only people I have heard complain about this are abled-bodied people.
> So unless you are a person with a disability or have direct knowledge of a
> person with a disability who is concerned about privacy issues related to
> the 2 disability questions that are in the long form, please stop bringing

> it up. We are well able to speak for ourselves.
>
> And just so we are clear, I am not interested in debating this.
>
>
>
> --Catherine Roy
> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>
>
>
> On Mon, July 26, 2010 10:27 pm, Heather Morrison wrote:

>> One really good reason for including sensitive questions like ethnicity,
>> religion, and disabilities on the census, is necessary as a check on
>> discrimination, eg are members of a minority on average poorer or living
>> in more crowded conditions,  This is a good reason for the form to be
>> mandatory, as the numbers for a minority may be small, and people from
>> such groups may understandably be more reluctant to fill in the form.
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> hgmorris@...
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> CivicAccess-discuss@...
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss@...
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
CivicAccess-discuss@...
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
CivicAccess-discuss@...
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
CivicAccess-discuss@...
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss